• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you watch the cop while he's shooting, and listen to the smoothness of the shots....he's very deliberate and steady. I think it's unlikely he was hit by taser darts.

Meh. I'm not saying that is what happens. But you would be surprised. If it didn't penetrate his skin, or if it didn't deploy. The x26 can act as a stun gun too. Pain compliance. Like being hit with a cattle prod. Training can make deliberate shots.
 
Meh. I'm not saying that is what happens. But you would be surprised. If it didn't penetrate his skin, or if it didn't deploy. The x26 can act as a stun gun too. Pain compliance. Like being hit with a cattle prod. Training can make deliberate shots.

Agreed. But I also made the observation based as someone who does that type of training.
 
Last edited:
I will leave it to the courts to decide.

And I will remind people that it is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Wow
based off the video this Cop is guilty

race is a sub topic
cops in general is a sub topic


THIS cop, THIS guy is guilty and should go to jail if not get the chair himself

Whats worse about these situations is many will now pick sides between race and judge all cops based on this cop etc etc.

Im with Goshin on this, just another reason why body cams should be gaining large support and be mandatory in usage.

I tried to 'Like" your comment but for some reason every time I did, my computer went to the blue screen of death. So...

Good points.
 
I will leave it to the courts to decide.

And I will remind people that it is innocent until proven guilty.

Not if he is a cop. Then he is just guilty.

I wish people would remember what you said.
 
there's no defending this one. a police officer is not allowed to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect eight times in the back.
The law says police CAN shoot unarmed fleeing suspects but only if they represent a clear and present danger to society. Example would be a serial rapist, murderer or someone that if they were able to escape there is a reasonable expectation that they could cause someone else harm.

That is clearly not the case in this instance though.
 
What the ****. What do you consider resistance? Running away?

Us law permits shooting a fleeing suspect: "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."

Based on the video alone, I don't think the officer will be able to state that the suspect posed a serious threat to himself or others.
 
I will leave it to the courts to decide.

And I will remind people that it is innocent until proven guilty.

Tell that to the guy who got shot in the back....
 
I tried to 'Like" your comment but for some reason every time I did, my computer went to the blue screen of death. So...

Good points.

lol no worries.
 
Well, don't run. Pretty simple. You have warrants, man up and comply.

And if you don't expect to be executed by the judge, jury and executioner that is the police officer....
 
Initial Police reports said that officers performed CPR and delivered first aid to Mr. Scott.

That in itself is disturbing. They did no such thing. Disgraceful.

Crazy how immediate precautions were taken to ensure the cop's innocence could be maintained though.
 
Tell that to the guy who got shot in the back....

So, you want vigilante justice, is that it?

Forget the courts. Forget innocent until proven guilty. Just let the masses decide and lynch him?

I'll pass on that thanks.
 
some people never learn. I'm not saying the cop isn't guilty, but you people jumped to conclusions on Ferguson and you are still wiping egg off your collective(lib) faces.

let's just wait for all the facts to come out before we start warming up the freedom buses. k?
 
The law says police CAN shoot unarmed fleeing suspects but only if they represent a clear and present danger to society. Example would be a serial rapist, murderer or someone that if they were able to escape there is a reasonable expectation that they could cause someone else harm.

That is clearly not the case in this instance though.

It's too bad the protesters spent so much time and credibility on the Zimmerman and Ferguson cases because this seems to be a more legitimate beef.
 
The law says police CAN shoot unarmed fleeing suspects but only if they represent a clear and present danger to society. Example would be a serial rapist, murderer or someone that if they were able to escape there is a reasonable expectation that they could cause someone else harm.

That is clearly not the case in this instance though.

yep, and this was about a tail light. i'm not a cop, but it seems like the right move might have been to pursue him or to go back to the cruiser and call it in.
 
Video is pretty damning. Charging him was the right call. Even if there was a scuffle for the taser prior to the shooting, the guy didn't possess it when the first shot was fired and the guy was fleeing, hard to justify a viable threat at that point. Too bad the kid didn't start videoing about 5 seconds earlier.

Doubt this see a jury trial, my guess is, if he has a lawyer with a brain, he'll plea it out.

Rather bizarre that both of these men were prior US Coast Guard, crazy.
 
And you Brits really seem to enjoy having among the very highest rates of crime, assault, and violent crime among industrialized nations. Go figure.

No we don't in fact our crime is currently at an all time low with no police officers killed in the line of duty for the last two years. Our murder rate is a fifth of that in the US too

Crime in England and Wales falls 16% to lowest level since 1981 | UK news | The Guardian

Unlike in the US a lethal response to crime is the last resort not the first.
 
The rate of cops being murdered this year is UP 56% so screw the losers that try to resist -shoot first and ask later.

Its that shoot first policy that has led to an increase in murdered cops.
 
Though it appears from the video that the cop was not justified in the shoot,.........running from a cop for any reason?,.......STUPID.

Shooting a suspect who is running away... more stupid.
 
Body cams on cops are 100% worthless. The police depts. would just doctor the body cam videos or else the cops would turn off the cams and/or censor specific footage.

In the event body cam videos were available for the public to see, there would be huge discrepancies in the video picked up by those cams and those picked up by bystander cameras and/or cell phones.

I don't think they are worthless because those types of things wouldn't always happen, and any copy turning off his video or any missing seconds would still be evidence that the cop was the wrong doer.
 
The jurors may decide that the wires trailing from Slager to Scott are significant enough to answer the question of to what degree--if any--the Taser affects the situation.
Unlikely.
A taser in the hands of a criminal can incapacitate the Officer, allowing the criminal to seize and use the Officers firearm.


Jurors could decide that Slager is seen casting something to his right just before he draws his firearm. They may determine that this is Slager dropping the Taser so that he can draw his firearm.
Considering the angle and force of the thrown object in connection with the movement of the Officers hands. Unlikely.
They will understand it was not the Officer that threw it.


The best case for Slager is that jurors decide a reasonable person would see the fleeing Scott as a grave and imminent threat to the officer
:naughty
The best case for him is if they do not think he saw the criminal throw the weapon away allowing him to still reasonably believe he was a threat.





I have made nothing up, the facts are obvious:

1. the man was not a danger to the officer
2. the officer gunned an unarmed man down in the back with 8 shots fired

The man did something wrong and needs to be prosecuted to the proper extend of the law for his crimes.
Yes you did.

The following are just some of the bs you made up to believe.

"The man lied, the officer moved the tazer over to make it look like he had been struggling."
"and most likely never was."
"the man was not a danger to the officer"
"This officer is a murderer"


but in that case there cannot be anything on the side of the police officer. What he did is clearly illegal and not defendable in any way shape or form.

Yeah, it seems logic seems go out the door when this kind of discussion is going on

:doh

Which you just confirmed in the quote above this one.
No, what is "illogical" is blame this officer for all the other black unarmed men gunned down by the police, or making this in Ferguson 2.0 because that would be illogical, sending death threats to the officer/his family/attacking fellow officers, shooting at those officers, etc. etc. etc. That is illogical/logic going out the window.

What is also illogical is doing like this is not a case of un-warranted deadly force to an unarmed and totally and utterly none dangerous person. Trying to make excuses like "we don't know what he did before" when what he did before is not a reason for gunning someone down in the back like that with 8 bullets. The man was a non-violent person who had not paid his child support and had a broken window.

There are far too many arrest warrants issued IMHO for things that do not warrant them. Child support is not a case that should be so insane that people go to jail for it in the manner that is happening now. It is important to take non-paying dead beat parents (look, I said parents because not paying your child support has to be seen as gender-neutral) but not with all those arrest warrants and jail time. Make him work for his "offense" of non-payment. Make him do something useful.

Illogical is also defending police officers in cases where defending them is totally illogical. No competent police officer should do such a thing as has happened here (in a case like this one).

One cannot logically explain why this officer did something so senseless and deadly, it cannot be justified and it should be punished in accordance with the law.
Nothing in the above quote refutes what you quoted.
As shown, your comment was more than applicable to what you said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom